Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectiveThis study systematically synthesizes the best available evidence for the non-pharmacological management of swallowing disorders in Parkinson's disease, establishing an actionable framework to standardize clinical implementation and optimize multidisciplinary care pathways.MethodsBased on the "6S" evidence resource model, a systematic search was conducted for all evidence on dysphagia management in Parkinson's disease, including guidelines, expert consensuses, clinical decision-making tools, and systematic reviews. The search period spanned from the inception of the database up to December 31, 2024. Three researchers independently screened and evaluated the literature, and subsequently, two researchers extracted and summarized the evidence in accordance with the JBI grading of evidence and recommendation system.ResultsA total of 18 pieces of literature were included, encompassing 2 guidelines, 4 expert consensuses, 11 systematic reviews, and 1 clinical decision-making document. The evidence covered 7 categories, with a total of 53 best evidence items identified, including screening, assessment, rehabilitation, nutritional management, airway and complication management, and outcome evaluation.ConclusionThis study comprehensively and scientifically summarizes the best evidence for the non-pharmacological management of swallowing disorders in patients with Parkinson's disease. Users of this evidence should consider specific clinical contexts during the translation of evidence and select appropriate evidence-based interventions to develop individualized and localized management plans.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.